So you are probally ok with words like "renigging" "Indian-giver" and "jimmyrigged"(spin off of "n-word-rigged" with reference to the now infamous jimcrow laws)

Or... you're just some PC pu$$y that thinks the world revolves around you and your race. Get over yourself and EDUCATE yourself instead of playing the victim, man:

The word "niggardly" is NOT racist. (In the United States, there have been several controversies concerning the word "niggardly," an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly," due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "n-word." However, the two words are etymologically unrelated. "Niggard" predates the word "n-word" in the English language by a couple hundred years at least. "Niggard" comes up as early as Chaucer, late 14th century. The racial slur "n-word," on the other hand, doesn't enter the lexicon until the 1500's, first as "neger" or "neeger," obviously from the same root as the French negre and Spanish negro, words for the color black, which are derived from the Latin niger.)

Also, it's "reneging", not "renigging." (The word comes from Medieval Latin and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the word that you suggest it does).

By the way, thanks for threadcrapping Next time, start your own thread in the appropriate forum.

I'm a little late to the game here, obviously, but I figured I would add a dose of reality to the "IP law" discussion.

"IP law" is not a clearly defined separate practice. Virtually all business matters entail some IP issues, if only a licensing provision or patent indemnity. If touching those provisions required membership in the patent bar, I would be in trouble (as would approximately 98% of business attorneys in the US).

Similarly, "IP ligitation" is a fuzzy concept, as many business disputes will involve IP issues - such as litigating those provisions I described above. If participation in litigation of those subject matters required admission to the patent bar, then approximately 98% of US litigators would be in the same pile of trouble as I.

In fact, the patent bar only relates to ... patents - which are only a relatively small subset of "intellectual property." Copyright, know-how, trade secrets - all are intellectual property governed by "IP law," and none involve patents or the patent bar. (Trademarks are an interesting middle ground).

And even within that patent subset, there is much activity that (as far as most attorneys are concerned, anyway) does not require admission to the patent bar. As far as I know, admission to the patent bar is only required for a proceeding before the Patent Office (and to hold yourself out as a "patent attorney"), which limits the requirement for that bar admission by quite a bit.

Of course, I could be wrong. I have done no research on the subject (other than check Wikipedia for the full name of the USPTO), and am basing my views entirely on observations of the behavior of every lawyer I know. So it is possible that all of BigLaw is one giant violation, and is practicing IP law without proper authorization - who knows.

But, to the OP - it sounds like patent agent may be a useful step for you, for a couple of reasons.

Patent lawyers are indeed in high demand generally ... but mostly within BigLaw. Firms on the less expensive end of the spectrum provide mostly straight-forward patent services, and face stiff competition from patent agents on price. As a result "patent attorney" is not as attractive a designation at that level, and patent agent may get you the same result for a whole lot less pain.

Big firms do seek patent lawyers, and typically pay a salary premium to associates admitted to the patent bar, but - and this is a big but - they only hire patent attorneys who also meet their general hiring guidelines. Very few big firms will consider a candidate from the schools you mention, which will make it a challenge for you to get a job with BigLaw under the best of circumstances, and we are not living in the best of circumstances.

In short, I tend to agree that law school may not be in your best interest at this time, for all the reasons others have posted as well.

Maybe you can't "waive" the bar, but some folks can certainly "waive-in" to the patent bar without taking the patent bar exam. Worrisome? Perhaps. Since we are such good friends now, my dear mandamus, I will call the PTO and all the law firms I know in the morning and tell them about your concerns. I'm certain once everyone hears about their malpractice, this kind of thing will stop. I can add some more people to the list if cptawsome would like to weigh in as well. What luck to stumble upon two such wonderful advice-givers on the same small thread. It's been a Merry Christmas indeed! (Or holiday of your choice--I don't want to be exclusionist!)

"but your honor I don't have to obey the law, because the opposing party spelled something wrong"

Let me know really break this down for you, read actual caselaw. Nearly every judge who writes it spells stuff wrong and starts sentences with And or Because and spells Majuana with an H, and uses words like niggardly(blows your mind but its considered ok apparently) So keep crying about your daddies but real life isn't found at the bottom of your bottle.

Enjoy disbarment.

Well, it seems you have ignored my warning ban and continue to disrespect other posters. This ban is permanent.